The administrative and criminal charges against Senator Joel Villanueva, concerning the alleged misuse of $\text{P}9.7$ million from his Priority Development Assistance Fund (PDAF), have evolved into a rare public dispute involving two former Supreme Court Justices who served as the Philippine Ombudsman. The core of the controversy lies in the complete reversal of disciplinary and criminal findings by one Ombudsman against the orders of his predecessor, highlighting fundamental disagreements over evidence, jurisdiction, and the very nature of legislative fund control.
At the heart of the matter stands the 2019 decision by then-Ombudsman Samuel Martires to overturn two sweeping 2016 resolutions issued by his predecessor, Conchita Carpio Morales.1 Morales had sought Villanueva’s dismissal from public office and a lifetime ban from government service for his role in the alleged misuse of funds when he was the representative of the Citizens’ Battle Against Corruption (Cibac) party-list.2
The “Secret Decision” and Public Outcry
Martires’ 2019 ruling remained undisclosed until its existence was inadvertently revealed by the current Ombudsman, Jesus Crispin Remulla. Remulla, unaware of the reversal, had sent a letter to the Senate announcing his intention to pursue Villanueva’s dismissal by implementing Morales’ original 2016 order. Martires, who retired in July 2025, had never publicly announced the decision, leading Remulla to term it a “secret decision” that only came to light years later.3
This surprising turn—especially the fact that Villanueva himself kept quiet about his exoneration—sparked questions regarding the procedural transparency of the Ombudsman’s office. Remulla has since pledged to make Martires’ reversal public, emphasizing the need for clarity in such high-profile cases.4
Morales’ Initial Findings: Control and Conspiracy
In 2016, Ombudsman Morales issued two strong resolutions against Villanueva. The first was a 40-page administrative decision mandating his dismissal from public office, alongside several co-accused including then-Agriculture Secretary Arthur Yap and officials from the National Agribusiness Corp. (Nabcor) and Villanueva’s staff, Ronald Samonte. The second was a 55-page criminal complaint for graft related to “ghost/nonexistent” agricultural projects in Compostela Valley province dating back to 2008.
Morales, who issued the ruling after Villanueva had been elected senator but while the alleged wrongdoing occurred during his term as a party-list representative, was resolute that the decision must be enforced. She argued that members of Congress are generally exempt from disciplinary actions by the Ombudsman, but asserted that Villanueva, as a mere nominee, only took his House seat via his party-list before serving as head of the Technical Education and Skills Development Authority (Tesda).
Morales’ core argument for both charges was the lawmaker’s “effective control” over his PDAF.5 She contended that PDAF allocations were essentially the “personal funds” of lawmakers and that Villanueva had treated his funds as such, “dictating how it should be utilized and released.”
According to Morales:
Villanueva dictated the projects, identified the implementing organizations, and determined the exact amount of PDAF for each project.
He “diverted” the funds through a scheme of quick releases and a lack of due diligence.
The chosen group, Aaron Foundation Phils. Inc. (Afpi), was capitalized at only $\text{P}68,000$, far below the required 20 percent of the project cost.
Sworn statements from local government officials in the supposed implementation areas belied the existence of the agricultural projects, confirming “substantial evidence” of misappropriation.6
Morales concluded that Villanueva and his co-accused “deliberately violated the law and regulations” by recommending and approving the release of funds to an unqualified organization despite glaring irregularities, demonstrating a conspiracy to defraud the government.
Martires’ Basis for Reversal: Forgery as a Decisive Factor
In a stark contrast, Martires’ subsequent resolutions in September and October 2019 entirely exonerated Villanueva.7 His ten-page reversal of the administrative order and thirteen-page rejection of the criminal charges were heavily anchored on one critical piece of evidence: forgery.
Martires ruled that there was “no adequate evidence” showing Villanueva’s involvement in the embezzlement.8 His reasoning relied upon:
-
NBI Findings: Martires cited a finding by the National Bureau of Investigation (NBI), corroborated by a private document examiner, that Villanueva’s signatures on the reports of the agribusiness livelihood material distribution “were obviously forged” when compared to his standard and specimen signatures.
Lack of Corroboration: He asserted that there was “no corroborative proof” to establish that the critical letters sent to former Agriculture Secretary Yap and Nabcor President Alan Javellana, which authorized the fund release to Afpi, were genuinely signed by Villanueva.
While Martires agreed with Morales that the government had indeed lost $\text{P}9.7$ million, he concluded that the amount was “lost due to the actions of certain unscrupulous persons,” not due to any proven involvement or conspiracy by Villanueva and his co-accused. Martires stressed that there was “no sufficient evidence on record” proving a conspiracy, suggesting that the PDAF loss required an “in-depth probe” to uncover the identities of the “actual malefactors” who falsified the documents.
The Debate on the Burden of Proof
The disagreement between the two former Supreme Court Justices highlights a fundamental legal debate over the burden of proof in forgery allegations:
Villanueva’s Defense: The Senator consistently maintained that the signatures on the PDAF documents, including the letters authorizing fund releases and the lists of beneficiaries, were forged, and he denied any participation in their preparation.
Morales’ Counterargument: She countered that Villanueva’s forgery claims “fail to persuade,” citing a core principle of jurisprudence: “Forgery is not presumed; it must be proved by clear, positive and convincing evidence and the burden of proof lies on the party alleging forgery.” Morales argued that a mere variance in specimen signatures was insufficient to conclusively prove forgery, implicitly rejecting the adequacy of the evidence presented by Villanueva at that time.
The dramatic clash between the two Ombudsmen leaves the PDAF case against Senator Villanueva in a state of diplomatic and legal tension. Martires’ exoneration, anchored on forensic findings of forgery, stands against Morales’ damning conclusion of effective control and willful violation. The eventual public disclosure of Martires’ “secret decision” and the ongoing public debate underscore the vulnerability of high-ranking public officials to complex legal battles and the shifting standards of accountability within the Philippines’ anti-graft body.